If you read the post it's pretty clear that a random person saying either of those won't get them banned. Twitter talks a lot about the context around them, how other people are interpreting them, and how past actions of Trump are influencing their decision.
The report you linked to has been disputed by a lot of respected people: professors, the Michigan State Department, non-profits on fair elections, the former acting director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program[0], and even Krebs, Trump's former chief of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency[1]. The last affidavit written by the author of that report was also disproven and had entirely wrong numbers[2].
Then they should conduct their own forensic analysis of this image of a Dominion voting machine in Michigan. Until then, their dispute is opinion. A lot of these "fact checks" blur into the realm of opinion, not facts. If you can point me to a counter forensic analysis of this image, including counter findings that adjudication audit logs were not deleted for the 2020 election, then I'd be happy to read it.
A lot of smart people dispute this election. Doesn't make it fact, either.
Krebs called this the "most secure election in history". Seems legit.
There are still lawsuits ongoing in the courts. You keep saying 60 of them, it's 54. You're so quick to question someone else's accounting skills earlier...
There are ten lawsuits ongoing, not zero, ten. That process hasn't happened, it is still happening. [0]
I don't think that's correct. My understanding was that GDPR applies to organizations that are used by EU citizens or residents. See:
> Under the GDPR, organizations may be in scope if (i) the organization is established in the EU, or (ii) the organization is not established in the EU but the data processing activities are with regard to EU individuals and relate to the offering of goods and services to them or the monitoring of their behavior.
I think the "102 job openings posted" refers to their being 102 roles listed on their jobs page. Each of those roles could be looking for more than 1 person to hire. For example, they probably want to hire more than just 1 "Senior Software Engineer" [0]
Dr. McKee, the study's author, acknowledged that and addressed it:
> But 110 positives remain significant scientific evidence of an N.F.L. player’s risk of developing C.T.E., which can be diagnosed only after death. About 1,300 former players have died since the B.U. group began examining brains. So even if every one of the other 1,200 players had tested negative — which even the heartiest skeptics would agree could not possibly be the case — the minimum C.T.E. prevalence would be close to 9 percent, vastly higher than in the general population.
But it should not be unexpected for the number to be higher. For years people who weigh hundreds of pounds are hitting each other repeatedly. And they are paid considerably well for it. Plus, we should compare this to other sports as well, as even most non-contact sports (soccer, basketball, even baseball) have collisions from time to time. Football should have a higher percentage than those, but without knowing the percentages in even 'safe' sports, these numbers are practically meaningless.
The real issue would arise if they can somehow test high school students and find similarly high percentages (90+ percent), but since you can't test right now until they are deceased (from what I understand), that would be extremely hard to do.
> The real issue would arise if they can somehow test high school students and find similarly high percentages (90+ percent), but since you can't test right now until they are deceased (from what I understand), that would be extremely hard to do.
I think that's seriously downplaying the issue.
Let's say hypothetically HS football players are developing it at 10% vs 1% in the general population. That alone would be a massive discovery, and grounds for seriously reworking or even eliminating HS football. You don't need these rates to be in the 90% range for this to be game changing, so to speak.
Early studies (2012) found that high school students had CTE [1]. When the issue broke nationally a few years ago, early indicators were that high school students were at higher risk than older athletes [2]. There have been some doctors that claim to be able to diagnose living people with CTE [3]. However, concussions are difficult to diagnose [4] and may go unreported. Sadly, one common side effect of concussions is suicidal thoughts [5]. Which is one of the main reasons people are asking if football is worth the risk [6].
Great article! Thanks for taking the time to write it up.
What sort of performance impact do these indexes have on writes? I'm guessing PostgreSQL has to look at evaluate each index predicate for the inserted data to see if the index needs to have an entry added.
> What sort of performance impact do these indexes have on writes? I'm guessing PostgreSQL has to look at evaluate each index predicate for the inserted data to see if the index needs to have an entry added.
When we first deployed partial indexes as our primary indexing strategy, we did notice significantly higher CPU. At the time our assumption was that evaluating the partial index predicates was the cause of the high CPU. I later wound up investigating the high CPU use and found the time wasn't spent on evaluating the partial index predicates, but on actually parsing them! I recently wrote up another blog post on how I found this out: https://blog.heapanalytics.com/basic-performance-analysis-sa...
